linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] usb: tcpm: Simplify the return expression of tcpm_start

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YXKkyRGoH+UJzIFw@kroah.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Oct 2021 13:47:21 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     dingsenjie@....com
Cc:     linux@...ck-us.net, heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com,
        linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dingsenjie <dingsenjie@...ong.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: tcpm: Simplify the return expression of
 tcpm_start_toggling

On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 07:00:45PM +0800, dingsenjie@....com wrote:
> From: dingsenjie <dingsenjie@...ong.com>
> 
> Simplify the return expression in the tcpm.c

Why?

> 
> Signed-off-by: dingsenjie <dingsenjie@...ong.com>

Is this the full name you sign legal documents with?  (I have to ask...)

> ---
>  drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpm.c | 5 +----
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpm.c b/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpm.c
> index 22a85b396f69..dabe694a7eb1 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpm.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpm.c
> @@ -2766,14 +2766,11 @@ static int tcpm_set_charge(struct tcpm_port *port, bool charge)
>  
>  static bool tcpm_start_toggling(struct tcpm_port *port, enum typec_cc_status cc)
>  {
> -	int ret;
> -
>  	if (!port->tcpc->start_toggling)
>  		return false;
>  
>  	tcpm_log_force(port, "Start toggling");
> -	ret = port->tcpc->start_toggling(port->tcpc, port->port_type, cc);
> -	return ret == 0;
> +	return port->tcpc->start_toggling(port->tcpc, port->port_type, cc) == 0;

Why change this from the original code?  The original code is easier to
read, right?

thanks,

greg k-h